Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1105632,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1105632/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 314,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "A lot of funds are being used in social assistance. I know the history of social assistance. Orphans and vulnerable children, persons living with disability, and the elderly should benefit. They are clearly defined in the Act. So, I do not understand why we would remove an Act and replace it with regulations, and then say that we are putting it under regulations, but we are coming up with an Act. What would have happened is that they would have come up straight with an Act that would either amend this or if they are repealing, we would see that most of the components of what is in this Act are in a new Act. We are not coming up with an amendment or a new Act that will dictate that we repeal this Act. We are basically repealing this Act and replacing it with regulations. What I do not understand, because I know how the Ministry works, if this will be under regulations from the Treasury and the funds are being managed in the Ministry, what is going to be the relationship? Even now, there are a lot of problems in the management of these funds. When we started it, it was a small programme and we had an inter-ministerial committee that was to look at all that. Even when the Bill came into place, there were consultations on how it would work and put all things together. The social assistance programme was intended to be larger. Later on, it was meant to extend and take care of vulnerable people who live in poor urban areas like Korogocho and Kibera. Actually, a bit of it was started in Mombasa and it was supposed to be extended. To repeal this Act and replace it with regulations without a substantive amendment Bill is not in order. What should happen is that they should quickly come up with another Bill that is more substantive that takes into consideration all the contents of this Act, and then say that with that, the other Act stands repealed. In my view, it is not proper to do this. Therefore, I oppose."
}